H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Sue Barker vs Pam Teeguarden H2H: 4-0
Sue Barker holds a 4–0 lead over Pam Teeguarden in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Sue Barker leads 2–0 on clay and 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Sue Barker won the 1981 Richmond third round 6-1 7-5.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
GBR
Age 70
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H
4
–
0
4 main draw meetings
USA
Age 75
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 13, 1981* | Richmond | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Sue Barker | 6-1 7-5 | Pam Teeguarden | Match data |
| Jan 28, 1977* | Minneapolis | WTA 250 | R16 | Carpet | Sue Barker | 6-2 6-4 | Pam Teeguarden | Match data |
| Apr 30, 1976* | Amelia Island | WTA 250 | R16 | Clay | Sue Barker | 6-2 6-2 | Pam Teeguarden | Match data |
| Jul 20, 1975* | Kitzbuhel | WTA 250 | F | Clay | Sue Barker | 6-4 6-4 | Pam Teeguarden | Match data |
* Estimated match date where the exact historical date is unavailable.
Career Comparison
| Player | Current | Peak | Pts | Elo | W | L | Win % | GS | 1000 | Finals | 500 | 250 | Titles |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sue Barker | #162 | #57 | — | 2,257 | 381 | 217 | 63.7% | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 18 | 22 |
| Pam Teeguarden | — | — | — | 1,926 | 245 | 296 | 45.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
Career Progression by Age
Seasons are aligned by the age each player spent most of that calendar year. GS and Titles are cumulative career totals through that season.
| Age | Sue Barker | Pam Teeguarden | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | 1970 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,513 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 15 | 1971 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,526 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1972 | 3–2 | 60.0% | — | 1,543 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1973 | 8–6 | 57.1% | — | 1,571 | 0 | 1 | 1968 | 12–17 | 41.4% | — | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1974 | 40–20 | 66.7% | — | 1,771 | 0 | 6 | 1969 | 5–11 | 31.2% | — | 1,506 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1975 | 50–19 | 72.5% | — | 1,967 | 0 | 11 | 1970 | 19–19 | 50.0% | — | 1,629 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 1976 | 64–23 | 73.6% | — | 2,057 | 1 | 14 | 1971 | 17–21 | 44.7% | — | 1,681 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 1977 | 51–18 | 73.9% | — | 2,107 | 1 | 16 | 1972 | 31–25 | 55.4% | — | 1,874 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 1978 | 16–14 | 53.3% | — | 1,922 | 1 | 17 | 1973 | 21–22 | 48.8% | — | 1,846 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 1979 | 54–24 | 69.2% | — | 2,017 | 1 | 20 | 1974 | 22–18 | 55.0% | — | 1,905 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 1980 | 34–18 | 65.4% | — | 1,931 | 1 | 20 | 1975 | 21–25 | 45.7% | — | 1,815 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 1981 | 28–18 | 60.9% | — | 1,959 | 1 | 21 | 1976 | 7–14 | 33.3% | — | 1,775 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 1982 | 11–19 | 36.7% | — | 1,803 | 1 | 21 | 1977 | 14–20 | 41.2% | — | 1,783 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 1983 | 18–20 | 47.4% | — | 1,750 | 1 | 22 | 1978 | 11–19 | 36.7% | — | 1,740 | 0 | 3 |
| 28 | 1984 | 2–14 | 12.5% | #57 | 1,556 | 1 | 22 | 1979 | 13–19 | 40.6% | — | 1,748 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1980 | 17–16 | 51.5% | — | 1,803 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1981 | 20–19 | 51.3% | — | 1,788 | 0 | 4 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1982 | 3–10 | 23.1% | — | 1,684 | 0 | 4 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1983 | 4–6 | 40.0% | — | 1,653 | 0 | 4 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1984 | 8–11 | 42.1% | — | 1,616 | 0 | 4 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1985 | 0–4 | 0.0% | — | 1,588 | 0 | 4 |